who was well schooled in Roman law. He was qualified to investi gate the problems and to render a decision. However, he would not go that far. He would simply get statements from each party, trying to figure out the crux of the prob lem. After he had determined the issues at stake, stage two was set up. With the approval of the two individuals an arbitrator was ap pointed whose duty it was to in vestigate all the claims involved. It was up to him to make the final decision, passing judgment and is suing the sentence. It is this point that no doubt bothers Paul. The arbitrator, you see, is simply a pri vate citizen who probably is from the upper class. It was a position somewhat like our jury duty here in the United States. If he were called to serve he had to follow the order. In our country there are some exceptions in cases of hard ship, which was also true under Roman law. The problem was not so much going to court as it was having a private citizen, probably not a Christian, handle the dis agreement between Christians. What would be the impact with unbelievers? The unsaved in the community would wonder about the power and effectiveness of Christians who claimed they had the ability to judge even greater matters (vrs. 2, 3). In a coming day we shall have the privilege of judg ing the world, as well as angels. If the two Christians could not solve their differences they should have gone to someone else within the fellowship, rather than to someone who does not know Christ, (vs. 5). There was no reason for them to reveal that they lacked the ability to handle minor conflicts among
broadminded or an isolationist. We are in this world, among the worst of thieves, and all but our basic commitment demands that we maintain a uniqueness for Christ. DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN CHRISTIANS There has been a question down through the centuries as to wheth er it is proper for Christians to go to law against each other. I Corin thians 6 carries the testimony of the apostle Paul on this matter, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The conditions which prevailed at Corinth afforded the people three options, which are the same possibilities we have as well. The background of the prob lem is between two men rather than between an individual and the government or some organization. The situation involved civil pro ceedings initiated by one person against another. There was appar ently no criminal action involved. Verse six shows us this very plain ly. Both of them are brothers in the Lord. The case is simply a dis agreement between two Christians (vs. 7). In such a situation, the least desirable of the three options is the one the Corinthian Christians chose. They had decided there was nothing wrong in going to court with their brother. Paul points out the fact that such a practice should not be followed at all. To under stand the reason we need to get a picture of the historical setting. There are distinct parallels between our legal system and that which was in vogue during the New Tes tament era. In Roman law if two people had a grievance they first went together before a Roman magistrate. This was stage one as they stood in front of an individual
Page 24
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker